About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
care benefit system in the pentagon needs to be overhauled and that these are where major savings are and that's where we should aim for, that the pentagon cannot be immune from this exercise. >> i wouldn't disagree at all. i think you can debate what kind of military defense strategy you wish, what kind of forces you plan on having, their technology, their training levels, all that should be on the table. but you've got to do it in a rational way. you've got to act like it's a business. the whole notion of cutting billions of dollars out of the defense budget, i just read one of the pundits announcing you can cut the defense budget by 2/3 and it wouldn't affect national security. and that all of this is political theater. it's anything but political theater. you know, dr. ash carter, the deputy's a very rational, bright fellow. very experienced. the chiefs of the services just testified under oath. they said this is going to be a big problem. and i think it is. >> and i agree with the general. because again, as i said, i'm not saying not to do cuts but let's do it smart. let's no
the pentagon to allocate the cuts in their best judgment rather than forcing certain cuts on them. that would be one helpful thing, but i think the bargaining power almost requires that we allow it to happen before -- before anybody is going to get serious about their negotiation. i agree. it's a terrible idea, but it's maybe a bad idea whose time has come. >> laura you say it's not next to happen. >> right. >> you say there's no debt crisis. how would you describe the 16 trillion debt. >> so what i would say, look, there were estimates out there at the beginning of the year we needed about $4 trillion to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio. we're about 60% of the way there. we do need additional revenue increases or spending cuts over the next decade, but let me emphasize. over the next decade. not at a moment in time when the economy has 7.9% unemployment and is operating under its capacity to the tune of maybe six percentage points below capacity. this is a terrible time to do what needs to be done, and it's also a terrible way to do it because it's like telling a business you have to cut ever
he knows and doesn't know about the pentagon because he didn't know much. why are the democrats going to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so
to see you. i wanted to put this up. this is what's on the cover of "usa today." pentagon warns of huge cuts. when you think about what's going on in washington, right now, and you think about the sequester that may or may not happen, and you think about your history in washington, do you think that we will have the sequester? >> andrew, i don't know. i think it's a very complicated situation. i think we had a great opportunity and i actually thought there was some reasonable chance it might happen, which was to have a grand bargain that could have addressed what is really unsustainable and deeply dangerous long-term fiscal situation and i think if we had done that, not only would be useful for the long run but i think could have generated confidence in the shorter run and promote jobs now. now instead of that we have a happen has 5rd process. a sequester we're facing. it's a terrible piece of legislation. it arbitrarily cuts defense and nondefense without thoughtfully doing so. instead of being phased in so we'd have more room for recovery, it hits abruptly. and it's far, far from clea
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4